Do not let new words disguise old intentions.

The new Muslim Ban, issued March 6, 2017 and effective March 16, 2017, is still a Muslim Ban. Here’s why:

Update: Muslim Ban 2.0 Blocked

Updated March 22nd, 2017

Only days after the Muslim Ban 2.0 was released, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson of Hawaii issued a nationwide temporary restraining order, preventing the order from taking effect on its intended date at midnight on March 16th. Only hours later, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore D. Chuang of Maryland, “issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the 90-day ban against travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.”

We hope that judges and attorneys continue to challenge the legitimacy and motives behind this new executive order.

How is Muslim ban 2.0 different from the original?

Updated March 6th, 2017

1. Iraq is no longer on the list of banned countries. This change was reportedly motivated by the country’s “special” role in fighting ISIS, but still highlights enhanced security measures as negotiated with the Iraqi government.
2. Existing visas are valid. Visa-holders and permanent residents from Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Yemen, who were issued visas issued before March 16, are allegedly not subject to this new order.
3. Anyone whose visa was revoked/cancelled under the first executive order will be permitted entry. The executive order claims that “travel documents” will be given to the affected parties that may allow them into the United States.
4. Syrian refugees are no longer banned indefinitely. They are banned, along with all other refugees, for 120 days (subject to renewal).
5. No prioritization of religious minorities from the banned countries. (i.e., the exception for Christian refugees, as we always knew a Shia Muslim fleeing persecution in a Sunni-dominated state would not be granted such a priority)

Most of these changes are largely technical edits to help the Muslim Ban hold up in court, however the Trump administration still did not address the fundamental question at the heart of this series of executive orders: why is this necessary? The exclusion of valid visa holders suggests that Irani, Somali, Sudanese, Syrian, Libyan, and Yemeni nationals do not pose a specific kind of threat that justifies banning nationals who do not hold a valid visa before the arbitrary date of March 16th; it suggests that the current strenuous and extensive vetting process is inadequate without providing substantial evidence to the claim. This is still a Muslim and refugee ban operating on the assumption that nationals from six Muslim-majority countries are inherent security threats to this country, signed off by a President who promised a  Muslim-specific ban in his campaign. There is no legitimate reason or motivation for this ban beyond anti-Muslim discrimination.